K M Milsom1, M Tickle, A Blinkhorn. 1. Department of Dental Research and Development, Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust, Moston Lodge, Countess of Chester Hospital, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the type of restorative materials used in general dental practice and their effects on the outcomes of restorative treatment of primary teeth. METHOD: The study involved a retrospective investigation of case notes of 677 child patients of 50 general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the northwest of England. The history of dental care received by each child during the primary dentition period was recorded. The type of restorative material used and the number of times that each tooth was restored were recorded. The proportion of primary teeth that were extracted due to pain or sepsis was calculated according to whether they were filled by amalgam or glass ionomer, or were left unfilled. RESULTS: Of the treated teeth, 61% of first and 55% of second primary molars were restored with glass ionomer. Some 27.4% of first molars restored with amalgam required repeat restorations, compared with 42.5% of those filled with glass ionomer. The difference was highly significant (p<0.001). For all primary molar teeth, there was no difference in the proportion of extractions, according to the type of restorative material used or if carious teeth were left unrestored. CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of GDPs, glass ionomer restorations are used most commonly and are significantly more likely to require replacement than amalgam restorations. The type of restorative material used had no influence on outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the type of restorative materials used in general dental practice and their effects on the outcomes of restorative treatment of primary teeth. METHOD: The study involved a retrospective investigation of case notes of 677 childpatients of 50 general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the northwest of England. The history of dental care received by each child during the primary dentition period was recorded. The type of restorative material used and the number of times that each tooth was restored were recorded. The proportion of primary teeth that were extracted due to pain or sepsis was calculated according to whether they were filled by amalgam or glass ionomer, or were left unfilled. RESULTS: Of the treated teeth, 61% of first and 55% of second primary molars were restored with glass ionomer. Some 27.4% of first molars restored with amalgam required repeat restorations, compared with 42.5% of those filled with glass ionomer. The difference was highly significant (p<0.001). For all primary molar teeth, there was no difference in the proportion of extractions, according to the type of restorative material used or if carious teeth were left unrestored. CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of GDPs, glass ionomer restorations are used most commonly and are significantly more likely to require replacement than amalgam restorations. The type of restorative material used had no influence on outcomes.